Delay Carrier Till 2000, Gao Says

Both Parties Reject Call For Small Ships

April 27, 1994|By BOB KEMPER Daily Press

WASHINGTON — The General Accounting Office opened fire Tuesday on the aircraft carrier the Navy wants to build next year, saying there is no tactical reason to build another flattop before 1998 or even 2000.

Smaller, cheaper ships could replace carriers in peacetime patrols around the world, and Newport News Shipbuilding, which claims to need the carrier work immediately, could find other ways to maintain its work force, Richard A. Davis, the GAO's director of national security analysis, told a congressional subcommittee.

Davis's comments were embraced by House Armed Services Chairman Ronald V. Dellums, D-Calif., but most of his fellow subcommittee members scoffed at the assertion that carriers could be replaced with smaller, less powerful ships.

"The least costly alternative is to run PT boats in the Gulf," said Rep. Norman Sisisky, D-Petersburg.

Davis' remarks echoed a GAO report issued last year.

The GAO does not advocate abandoning carriers in time of war, Davis told the House Armed Services subcommittee. The smaller ships, able to show America's might in peacetime, could never provide the firepower produced by a carrier, he said.

And, Davis said, a new carrier will be needed eventually, though it may not have to be a nuclear craft and it may not have to be built for another three to five years.

President Clinton's budget calls for construction of the carrier to begin next year.

In an era of shrinking defense budgets, however, the Navy must look for cheaper alternatives to the 12-carrier fleet it wants to maintain, Davis said.

Davis argued that the Department of Defense is already spending more than it should - it is exceeding five-year spending projections by $20 billion - and will likely never realize all the money it is counting on saving through base closings and other austerity measures.

Besides, he said, the Navy's own assessments show that only 10 carriers are necessary to fight a war. The other two carriers it wants are needed only to provide a worldwide show of force that reassures allies and deters potential aggressors during peacetime.

If the Navy had only 10 carriers, it could still provide most of the show of force it now provides with 12, he said.

Dellums questioned the need for such a "muscular force" as an aircraft carrier in peacetime and whether the nuclear shipbuilding industry can be sustained by some other, cheaper means.

"What is the need for an advanced aircraft carrier in a post-Cold War world?" he wondered.

But the chairman was virtually alone among the subcommittee members in that sentiment. During nearly three hours of testimony, Democrats and Republicans assailed the GAO's assessment and pressed the case for the immediate construction of another carrier.

After the hearing, carrier supporters said they remain confident that the $2.4 billion in the budget for the carrier would survive the committee.

Assistant Navy Secretary Nora Slatkin, who oversees naval acquisition, told the subcommittee that the new carrier "is our highest priority in this budget."

Carrier-borne jets can fly 150 sorties a day, and each is armed to take out two to three targets. It would take 300 to 400 ship-launched Tomahawk missiles to match that killing power, he said.